A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We provided you with NASA's math toolkit, used by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for all its missions and discussed the barycenter and you ignored it because you didn't understand it. Here it is again to ignore

spkezp_c

That explanation doesn't offer proof. In fact, it gives an excuse for an inaccurate outcome. I'm waiting to see conclusive proof that due to light time correction, and nothing else, we are able to make accurate computations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can actual distance be virtually nil (which means almost zero)? That's not logically or physically possible.

Actual physical distance cannot be nullified without movement, because it's actual and physical and can be measured. It is, by definition, the distance between two physical locations in space time. Two physical locations cannot be one physical location, because that's an impossibility. Laws of physics and all that.

No LadyShea, you are repeating the same mantra since this thread started. If my eyes can see an object by means of light, then that means there is no gap between locations, therefore it doesn't violate the laws of physics. That's in your imagination. That's because you're thinking in terms of light having to travel to us. You have yet to understand how the eyes work which is why you can't even begin to contemplate how real time vision is even possible.

[LadyShea]

The Hubble photos are authentic. That we can see supernovas and detect the photons from the supernova at the same time, contrary to Lessans prediction, is authentic. The Fizeau experiment is authentic. That NASA uses a speed of light correction in all of its projects and programs, and that those projects are successful in reaching their target, is authentic.

Here is an animation of the Fizeau experiment The measurement of the speed of light conducted by Fizeau

You are a liar, or you are hopelessly stupid, or you are adhering to your faith beyond all rationality, or you are crazy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you are repeating the same mantra since this thread started. If my eyes can see an object by means of light, then that means there is no gap between locations, therefore it doesn't violate the laws of physics. That's in your imagination. That's because you're thinking in terms of light having to travel to us. You have yet to understand how the eyes work which is why you can't even begin to contemplate how real time vision is even possible.

Eyes cannot nullify physical distance, because that is not possible within the laws of physics.

You sound like an idiot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it travels. The problem was your above quoted claim that it doesn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it travels if you keep forgetting and claiming otherwise.

You are completely failing to understand why non-absorbed light (the pattern that strikes our retina to reveal the object) does not exist beyond the inverse square law since it joins with the other colors in the visible spectrum.

[LadyShea]

You still sound like an idiot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

that means there is no gap between locations

But there is a gap, a measurable physical distance between two points. It exists. You cannot name a mechanism by which it ceases to exists without violating physical laws.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely failing to understand why non-absorbed light (the pattern that strikes our retina to reveal the object) does not exist beyond the inverse square law since it joins with the other colors in the visible spectrum.

Of course we are failing to understand lunatic word salad with no meaning whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, repeat, because you still sound like an idiot.

Do you actually think your little outburst changes anything? You just don't like to be called out on anything because you think your precious scientific method can weed out the phonies. But you're wrong and you can't stand it.

[LadyShea]

Do you actually think your little outburst changes anything?

LOL the histrionic religious fanatic who talks about being nailed to a cross accuses me of having an outburst.

You're an idiot who says crazy shit like "that means there is no gap between locations"

There is a gap, a measurable physical distance between two points. It exists. You cannot name a mechanism by which it ceases to exist without violating physical laws.

[LadyShea]

And yes you don't even need to say it, I am well aware of your histrionic, revenge fantasy fueled prediction that I will rue the day I called you names and martyred you for the cause of Lessans nonsense.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can this be tested when the mirror, the light bulb, and the observer are so close to each other. It presents the same problem as the example of seeing the spot on the moon.

He asked you which ones of those elements can be seen in real time. This is not the real test yet, in the diagram there is no rotating wheel, and the latest question concerns only a light bulb and a mirror. What can be seen in real time, the light bulb, its reflection, or nothing?

In the Fizeau experiment, there is a point in time when no light can be seen. This happens at a particular speed of the wheel and shouldn't be possible if we saw in real time. Do you want me to go into more detail? Just kidding, of course you don't.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can this be tested when the mirror, the light bulb, and the observer are so close to each other. It presents the same problem as the example of seeing the spot on the moon.

Why don't you actually answer the question and then we'll concern ourselves over how this was tested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Hubble photos are authentic. That we can see supernovas and detect the photons from the supernova at the same time, contrary to Lessans prediction, is authentic. The Fizeau experiment is authentic. That NASA uses a speed of light correction in all of its projects and programs, and that those projects are successful in reaching their target, is authentic.

Here is an animation of the Fizeau experiment The measurement of the speed of light conducted by Fizeau

You are a liar, or you are hopelessly stupid, or you are adhering to your faith beyond all rationality, or you are crazy.

This experiment was done to determine the speed of light. He makes no mention of seeing the light bulb.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Why don't you actually answer the question and then we'll concern ourselves over how this was tested.

I just did.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was measuring the speed of light in this experiment only. That makes absolute sense that he was able to measure the speed of light. He makes no mention of seeing the light bulb.

What does the Sun look like? If you turn on the Sun, what does it look like for the 8 minutes before the light reaches the Earth? I'll make a distinction between "seeing the light bulb" and "seeing the light from the light bulb" when you can explain that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And yes you don't even need to say it, I am well aware of your histrionic, revenge fantasy fueled prediction that I will rue the day I called you names and martyred you for the cause of Lessans nonsense.

This is not about revenge, nor am I being histrionic. I don't like to be called names or treated like I'm a second class citizen just because I see things differently than you do.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just did.

In what way does that constitute an answer to the question? If you look at a light bulb in a mirror, do you see the light bulb in real time or not?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just did.

No, you didn't. Okay, slowly and one by one:

Let's say you are looking at a light bulb in a mirror.
Do we see the light bulb in real time?

[LadyShea]

This is not about revenge, nor am I being histrionic. I just don't like to be called names and I will defend myself

Quit being a histrionic, weaseling idiot who says crazy things and I'll quit calling you names.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

What does the Sun look like? If you turn on the Sun, what does it look like for the 8 minutes before the light reaches the Earth? I'll make a distinction between "seeing the light bulb" and "seeing the light from the light bulb" when you can explain that.

But you're concluding the very thing that we're setting out to prove. You can't assume that what you will see is the light bulb. There's a difference between light that is emitted and the object (the Sun) which contains other gases and gives it its shape. If I was looking up toward the Sun, I would see light (especially if there was a glare). If something blocked the Sun, it would suddenly be dark. This doesn't prove that we see in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit being a histrionic, weaseling idiot who says crazy things and I'll quit calling you names.

I know you are trying to fill in where David and NA left off, but I'm not going to allow you to act this way just because you don't like my answers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, you didn't. Okay, slowly and one by one:

Let's say you are looking at a light bulb in a mirror.
Do we see the light bulb in real time?

I already answered this. It is impossible to prove anything from this example where the object (the light bulb) is present. Even though the light is being (P) reflected off of the mirror, the light bulb is still there. The theory is that the object doesn't have to be present once it reflects the light that contains the pattern in it. I have yet to ever see any pattern of light strike my eyes that reveals an object when the object is nowhere to be found.

[LadyShea]

I'm not going to allow you to act this way just because you don't like my answers.

How do you plan on disallowing any action of mine?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this.

No you didn't.

It is impossible to prove anything from this example where the object (the light bulb) is present in some form.

That wasn't the question. The question was
Let's say you are looking at a light bulb in a mirror.
Do we see the light bulb in real time?

[davidm]

Don't forget bringing up how we send rockets to Mars. She NEVER answers that one; she avoids it like the electrified third rail, because she can't find any remotely plausible reason to brush it off as "unreliable." Hold her feet to the fire and rub her nose in it.